Cardinals Cut DeAndre Hopkins
NFL Offseason - Unable to find a trade with a team willing to take his contract, the Arizona Cardinals announced this afternoon that they are cutting superstar wide receiver DeAndre Hopkins. It is not a post-June 1 designation, so the Cardinals will take the entire $22.6 million cap hit in 2023. They are going to be very, very bad this year. Rumors have put Hopkins with a number of teams including Kansas City and Buffalo, so we'll have to see who wants to give him the biggest contract and a chance to win a Super Bowl.
Hopkins had his worst season by Football Outsiders numbers last year, but it wasn't exactly the best quarterback situation. He ranked 70th among qualifying receivers with 11 DYAR, and had -11.2% DVOA. Every other year except 2016, Hopkins has had a positive DVOA and he has seven seasons in the top 20 for receiving DYAR including 2020 and 2021 in Arizona. He's still excellent but will turn 31 next month.
Comments
67 comments, Last at 08 Jun 2023, 3:59pm
#1 by guest from Europe // May 26, 2023 - 2:45pm
I haven't watched the Cardinals last year. Their top 4 WRs (Hopkins, Brown, Dortch, Moore) all have the same stat numbers (DVOA, DYAR, yards/catch). In DVOA they were 71st, 72nd, 64th, 70th, respectively. Isn't it likely that something wasn't working with Cardinals offense at all when they all look the same? Thus, isn't it possible that Hopkins is still very good?
And no team traded a 6th round pick for Hopkins on unguaranteed large salary ($17M or something). If he wouldn't be good in training camp, such a team could release him with no dead cap problems. I guess all of them think he isn't WR1 anymore.
Panthers, Texans and Colts have the cap space and no WR better than even 2022 Hopkins was. Couldn't they use an experienced WR for their new QBs? Ravens preferred Beckham for $15M guaranteed.
I think Hopkins can at least be a possession-type of older WR, like Boldin was for Ravens and 49ers, if not better. Hopkins wasn't often injured like Julio Jones or A.J. Green. He had the knee MCL tear in 2021.
Are Cardinals rebuilding under new GM?
#28 by RickD // May 31, 2023 - 11:26am
If Hopkins were significantly better than his teammates, I'd expect his DVOA to be noticeably better, even if the situation as a whole were not very good. I think it's possible he's still very good, but I wouldn't cite last season's DVOA to support that argument.
#32 by guest from Europe // May 31, 2023 - 2:26pm
it's possible he's still very good, but I wouldn't cite last season's DVOA to support that argument.
I tried to be objective, can't deny his 2022 DYAR or DVOA to force some argument. Barnwell wrote on ESPN that Hopkins last year was 17th among all WRs in yards per route run:
What went wrong: The Cardinals didn't get any return for Hopkins. We're only a year removed from Davante Adams and Tyreek Hill landing their respective former franchises first-round picks and additional selections in trades. Hopkins is 30 and coming off a season in which he was suspended six games for violating the league's policy on performance-enhancing drugs, but he posted a 64-717-3 line in nine games after returning, finishing 17th in yards per route run.
#2 by theslothook // May 26, 2023 - 3:02pm
They are going to be very, very bad this year.
Yah, the Cardinals job looked like one of the least attractive opportunities. Even worse than the Broncos situation honestly. They are financially tied to Murray; who even before he got injured, it was hard to know where he ranked as a QB. Now that he's coming off a devastating injury and he relies on his legs; there's extreme dangers all over the place. One doesn't even need to go back that far to remember the cautionary tale of Rg3; who went from being a shining star to an unplayable QB in the span of one gruesome leg injury.
#3 by BroncosGuyAgain // May 26, 2023 - 8:23pm
"Unable to find a trade with a team willing to take his contract". I presume this is the case, else the Cardinals front office would be beyond incompetent. Assuming this is true, pro scouting staffs around the league are not overwhelmed by Hopkins. Huge cap hit this year. This doesn't make the Texans' trade of Hopkins look good, necessarily, but perhaps less bad. Actually, much less bad. Perhaps the rare "lose-lose" transaction.
#4 by theslothook // May 26, 2023 - 9:21pm
It's an interesting question. At the time of the trade, there was no indication that'll fall off was coming from Hopkins. So I can't really credit them without the benefit of hindsight.
But even if they knew or suspected that Hopkins was going to decline, that move was one of the major reasons that DeShaun Watson ended up asking for a trade; which the nuclear disaster a franchise should always be trying to avoid. Now ironically, even that decision might end up working out for them
#5 by guest from Europe // May 27, 2023 - 2:24am
Huge cap hit this year.
This cap hit is to the Cardinals because in prior years they had artificially low cap hits for Hopkins. They paid him cash in bonuses, but cap hit was low because base salary was low. Now those bonuses add up to their cap.
A team that would have traded for Hopkins, would have him under contract for 2 remaining years, about $17M/year, all unguaranteed. Some team could trade for him, try him in training camp, if not satisfied release him in August and incur 0$ cap hit if i understand how that works. If released during the season, there is dead cap hit.
Currently there are 17 WRs paid more than $17M/year, 4 more are close to that + WRs on low rookie contracts (Jefferson, Chase, Higgins....)
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/average/wide-receiver/
WR2-types are paid $10-12M/year.
I think Hopkins can be at least high-end WR2 like Godwin on Bucs, if not WR1. There is a possibility he returns to pro bowl-level for a year or two.
The Bears don't know what QB Fields can do because they had no reliable WRs for 2 years. That is the narrative. Do Panthers, Colts and Texans have such WRs for their rookie QBs? If nothing else, Hopkins is a reliable pro.
He was a top-20 WR on Cardinals, as Schatz wrote. If his "true level" is 2021, than he is worth that high salary. If he has fallen to 70th best (2022) and there were no structural problems with Cardinals offense, than he would be only worth to Ravens, better Hopkins than Beckham+Agholor.
I guess teams saw what happened to Julio Jones, see that Hopkins is 31 years old and think the same will happen to him. Other WRs that are 31: D. Adams, K. Allen, Beckham, 30 year olds: Kupp, Evans, Diggs.
#7 by BigRichie // May 27, 2023 - 10:24pm
I don't see how you can deny that the Texans 'won' the DeAndre trade.
They got a 2nd Round draft choice for a guy who wanted both OUT!!! and a humongous contract from whomever the Texans traded him to. A contract he has not lived up to.
Just amazing how you folks so often forget that the NFL stands for Not For Long despite so much and so continual evidence that it is indeed so.
#8 by guest from Europe // May 28, 2023 - 2:52am
I don't see how you can deny that the Texans 'won' the DeAndre trade.
Because of this trade (March 2020) of all-pro WR Hopkins for often injured RB Johnson and 2nd round pick the Texans fired GM/coach O'Brien in October 2020. This was thought of as the worst trade of the decade by the Texans. Many articles were written about this.
They got a 2nd Round draft choice for a guy who wanted both OUT!!! and a humongous contract from whomever the Texans traded him to.
2nd round draft picks usually don't produce WR pro bowlers. Hopkins was already on a large contract by Texans. Cardinals guaranteed a lot of that money+signed an extension for 2023 and 2024. So they paid $55M cash for 3 years of Hopkins (19th by DYAR in 2020 and 2021). For Texans Hopkins was 17th, 2nd and 4th by DYAR in 3 years prior to this trade. He wasn't as good on the Cardinals, just in 2020 he was all pro 2nd team.
However, Hopkins was much better on Cardinals than D. Johnson on Texans. The Texans didn't pay Hopkins 18M/year, but paid RB Johnson 8M/year. 2nd round pick Texans used on R. Blacklock.
You can put this trade under lose-lose if you think Hopkins was severely overpaid. He was WR1 on Cardinals and played as such. He was top-20 WR in the NFL every season, but last one and in 2016. Since this trade the Texans had Cooks and some guys play WR position. They haven't won more than 4 games in a season and were dysfunctional for 3 years. With Hopkins they were in the playoffs in 2018 and 2019.
often forget that the NFL stands for Not For Long
I am probably guilty of this. That would mean that only QBs and linemen are worthy to be paid past age 30 or 31. For all other players rookie contracts + 1 or 2 more years.
Is there any player past age 30 from skill positions (pass catchers, DBs, ...) worth paying $12-17M/year on a 2+ years guaranteed contract?
#12 by theslothook // May 28, 2023 - 11:58am
I am probably guilty of this. That would mean that only QBs and linemen are worthy to be paid past age 30 or 31.
I think that's the correct way of looking at things, unless you are on the doorstep of a championship and you need one huge move to put you over the top. That's what the Von Miller signing was all about. Or the DeMarcus Ware signing by Denver
#13 by guest from Europe // May 28, 2023 - 3:30pm
As usual, we disagree. It is quite possible that i am wrong.
I would pay and play pro-bowl-level older skill position players past age 30, but not long, until about age 32. There is improvement in sports medicine and nutrition and careers last longer in all sports.
Older players that were worth paying past age 30 in no order: Boldin on Ravens and 49ers, S. Smith on Ravens, T. Kelce now, Gronkowski on Bucs, H. Ward, R. Wayne, Witten, Welker, Fitzgerald, Tony Gonzalez, ... high level players, all-pros. Hopkins was such a player and until proven otherwise to me he still is. The same for D. Adams, M. Evans, Kupp.... keep in mind that such a player if released is supposed to be replaced with a young player, usually a rookie. Many rookies are busts. There aren't 64 good young WRs or CBs in the league.
In my opinion O. Beckham isn't that level of Hopkins, Adams.
(when i wrote above that linemen should be paid past age 30, on what we agree, that included o-line, Whitworth, Peters... and d-line, Donald, Ware, Ngata, Suh, Miller, anybody that is good. They don't run far and often, it's easier for them. Plenty of them can play until age 34-36 if not injured)
#36 by guest from Europe // Jun 01, 2023 - 12:10am
This is possible. Why would WRs have a shorter career now than a decade ago?
If it is so, there won't be a HOF WR for a long time among current and future players. The closest ones are Julio Jones, Antonio Brown and Hopkins. Probably only Julio gets in. Brown will have to wait. Hopkins depends on his next two years.
#37 by IlluminatusUIUC // Jun 03, 2023 - 11:19am
I don't know if wideouts are aging quicker necessarily, but younger wideouts are able to contribute much sooner (the whole "3 year" development thing seems to be out the window), and that throws off the cost-benefit of paying older guys.
#38 by guest from Europe // Jun 04, 2023 - 3:59am
i can think of 2 reasons why teams don't want to pay older WRs. Both are monetary:
- QBs get huge contracts, there isn't enough money left to pay WRs
- young WRs on rookie contracts offer good enough production on much cheaper contracts than veteran WRs
It's possible that in the future teams won't give long 2nd contracts to WRs like they don't to RBs nowadays.
#21 by BigRichie // May 30, 2023 - 11:16am
1) Umm, something else cost them their franchise QB. It did make the news, so Googling it should help you.
2) The coach made the trade, so no it didn't cost him his job. Losing too much later did, along with multiple other GM moves which didn't work out, capped off by a failed power play.
3) Winner of said power play lost his job well after a Hopkins trade which no one held him responsible for anyway (blaming aforesaid loser of power play). Easterby also had another problem or two.
4) Check 1) and 3) for how McNair became a Houston laughing stock. Which stockness will cease the nanosecond the Texans gain their next playoff berth. I guarantee McNair is also still the Biggest Kahuna in whatever super-posh Houston Country Club he belongs to, so I doubt he's losing any sleep at all over what folks in general (temporarily) think of him.
#22 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 30, 2023 - 11:31am
I guarantee McNair is also still the Biggest Kahuna in whatever super-posh Houston Country Club he belongs to, so I doubt he's losing any sleep at all over what folks in general (temporarily) think of him.
I rather suspect he's not.
Tillman Fertitta has way more influence on Houston than McNair has, and that's before you get into oil/shipping money and other Texas interests.
#25 by BigRichie // May 30, 2023 - 5:10pm
It's not just about $$$, or even power. If your Spoiled Brat Kid wants a football autographed by DeAndre- I mean, DeShaun- I mean, well, I guess CJ now. you don't go to Tillman for it. The local Sports Team Managing Owner has perks available that no one else has. Nor can you kibitz with Tillman about what the Texans are or should be doing right now. Well I guess you can, but it's way more a thrill doing it with the actual Sports Team Managing Owner.
#23 by Aaron Brooks G… // May 30, 2023 - 11:37am
1) Umm, something else cost them their franchise QB. It did make the news, so Googling it should help you.
Watson refused to play for Houston long before the scandal broke out. You don't recall the Free Deshaun protests?
https://touchdownwire.usatoday.com/2021/01/18/deshaun-watson-asks-houston-texans-fans-to-call-off-protest-march-on-his-behalf/
https://abc13.com/houston-texans-deshaun-watson-quarterback-rally/9777079/
That's why their was scuttlebutt early on that the accusations were a hit piece backed by McNair. It's not like this has never happened before.
https://calltothepen.com/2017/07/30/yankees-history-george-steinbrenner-suspended-for-life/
#24 by BigRichie // May 30, 2023 - 4:59pm
The scandal cost them their franchise QB. Unless you argue that without DeShaun's initial refusal, the Texans would've played him through the scandal.
Who cares which happened first. The scandal finished off DeShaun's Houston career.
#26 by guest from Europe // May 31, 2023 - 1:44am
2) The coach made the trade, so no it didn't cost him his job. Losing too much later did, along with multiple other GM moves which didn't work out,
O'Brien was named GM in January 2020.
https://www.nfl.com/news/texans-coach-bill-o-brien-gains-general-manager-title-0ap3000001099559
Hopkins trade was his first official trade in March 2020. Later he traded for Cooks in April 2020.
At the beginning of 2020 season he lost 4 games, not many games. He was fired as a GM in October 2020, because of his managing moves, not as a coach, i think, but don't know for sure.
They also traded a 3rd round pick to Browns for RB Duke Johnson. He probably made the decisions to acquire Tunsil for lot of draft picks and send Clowney away. Officially those were made by an interim GM Olsen. He was interim June 7th 2019-January 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Houston_Texans_season
He was a good coach for 6 years. His problem was that the GM and coach was the same person. When GM got fired, that was him, the coach, as well.
A comprehensive article on this topic:
#14 by CV12Hornet // May 29, 2023 - 12:36pm
The Bears don't know what QB Fields can do because they had no reliable WRs for 2 years. That is the narrative. Do Panthers, Colts and Texans have such WRs for their rookie QBs? If nothing else, Hopkins is a reliable pro.
The Panthers' wide receiver room consists of 2021 second-rounder Terrace Marshall; 2nd-round rookie Jonathan Mingo; free-agent pickups Adam Thielen, DJ Chark, and Laviska Shenault; tight end Hayden Hurst; and then mostly a bunch of guys you've never heard of. They have four legitimate rotation receivers and a tight end who can catch, but they'd all be second options at best on a better team. The Panthers would love peak Hopkins, but it's debatable whether that's worth taking an expensive gamble on him when they could get a breakthrough from Marshall or a really good rookie season from Mingo.
The Colts are in better shape. Michael Pittman is a legitimate #1, Alec Pierce and Jelani Woods had good rookie seasons they can hopefully build on, and Isaiah McKenzie and rookie Josh Downs competing for the slot position. IMO the Colts are probably best off letting their youngsters play and build chemistry with Anthony Richardson.
The Texans would absolutely benefit from adding Hopkins, their receiver room is Carolina's but somehow worse and with less potential upside. Nico Collins has shown flashes but little substance; rookie Tank Dell and basically-a-rookie John Metchie figure to take lots of snaps; Robert Woods may be cooked; and when Dalton Schultz is your most dangerous receiver Hopkins becomes basically their bet guy the minute he steps into the room, even at his recent level of play.
#17 by guest from Europe // May 29, 2023 - 7:23pm
This is a good and informative post. The only players that you mentioned that were better last year than Hopkins (in his worst season) was Thielen, 38th with 111 DYAR and Chark with 124 DYAR. Pittman's stats, the Colts' No. 1, were actually worse than Hopkins' on more targets.
What happens with these 2nd round drafted rookies, nobody knows. For example, the Titans traded away A. J. Brown, drafted a mid-1st round Burks and had a lot of problems with pass offense last year. The same with Packers and their 2nd round WRs last year. Eagles had many problems with various drafted WRs and got Brown in a trade and their pass offense improved greatly. On the other hand, rookie WR Wilson on the Jets looked like a star in a horrible offense.
In my opinion if all players in particular part of the team (in this case pass offense) are de facto rookies and it performs badly, it's difficult for a team to understand what and where is the problem. Is it QB or WRs or positional coaches or playcalling or head coach?
The Panthers WRs actually look ok. Hopkins may end up with the Chiefs for 1 year, like Smith-Schuster last year.
#29 by RickD // May 31, 2023 - 11:28am
I wouldn't say the Texans' trade looks less bad. The Cardinals got three seasons from him, and he was elite in 2020. A later injury doesn't count on the Texans side of the ledger. They needed a lot more from David Johnson to validate that trade.
#64 by ImNewAroundThe… // Jun 08, 2023 - 11:37am
And the 2nd rounder they got turned into Ross Blacklock, who started 3 games for then but is not longer employed by them. Cardinals traded for Nuk with 3 years remaining on his contract. He played 3 years and made a pro bowl.
Texans shouldn't be given brownie points for somehow knowing he'd miss games.
#6 by guest from Europe // May 27, 2023 - 4:04am
rare "lose-lose" transaction
D. Adams to Raiders on a large contract for drafting of inside linebacker Q. Walker and half (trade up in draft) of WR Watson.
MAR 10 2015 Nick Foles traded to St. Louis (STL) from Philadelphia (PHI) with 2016 2nd round pick (#43 - traded) and 2015 4th round pick (#119 Andrew Donnal) for Sam Bradford and 2015 5th round pick (#145 - traded)
Watson to Browns for 2022 1st round guard, RB Pierce and now Anderson. Texans still get a 2024 1st round from Browns, but lost a more valuable own 2024 1st round pick in Anderson trade
RGIII-trade
probably more
#11 by guest from Europe // May 28, 2023 - 6:25am
That was Vikings trading for a QB in a state of emergency. Beginning of year, September, they had no QB. Bridgewater got injured in training on August 30th!
It's better to be lucky than good in these things. Eagles drafted Wentz and Bradford would be a backup or a placeholder for a few weeks. Probably no team wanted Bradford (otherwise they would have traded Bradford away during that offseason) and Eagles got more for him than Packers for Favre or Rodgers.
Next year they would get Foles back and he would be Super Bowl MVP. This story would be nuts even for Hollywood.
#15 by BroncosGuyAgain // May 29, 2023 - 5:47pm
Dude. I didn't say there had never been another lose-lose trade in history. There have, I assume, been several. I guess "rare" is subjectively defined. I did not mean to imply a once-per-three-hundred-year-event. Unusual enough to be casually noted as such.
#16 by guest from Europe // May 29, 2023 - 6:46pm
I didn't say there had never been another lose-lose trade in history.
I didn't think you did this. I mentioned other such trades in a separate post, not a direct reply to you, in hope other people would write more about such trades. And a reminder that only after a few years they can be assessed properly. Usually when something happens, people react immediately and forget about it in a month...
Unusual enough to be casually noted as such.
I agree with this. For example after a year T. Hill-trade looks like a win-win, and D. Adams-trade like a lose-lose. After a few years, who knows what it will be.
I didn't disagree with you or mean anything contrarian or bad. It just shows how difficult it is for people to understand each other's tone here. Every sentence would have to include "i agree" or "i disagree" or not reply to anyone. When i reply to someone i am usually somewhere half-way between "agree" and "disagree" and am interested in a conversation. I don't write any other posts anywhere on internet... and don't talk about the NFL with anyone ever.
#30 by RickD // May 31, 2023 - 11:35am
The RGIII trade wasn't a loss for the Rams. They got a slew of draft picks.
Their mismanagement of their draft capital shouldn't count against the trade itself. It was a great trade for them.
As for the Redskins, they got the RotY QB who could have worked out, had he not gotten injured. A similar argument exists for them: their mismanagement of RGIII hurt them, and it's hard to blame that on the trade, unless one wishes to argue that RGIII would inevitably fail in the dysfunctional Washington system. An interesting argument, but it's hard to run an argument if lack of self-confidence is one of your axioms.
#31 by theslothook // May 31, 2023 - 12:07pm
Judging the Rg3 trade, ex ante, is one of the most fascinating discussion points. Forget Rg3's name for a second and just evaluate it as a top prospect QB that isn't considered a reach drafting him 1st or 2nd overall. Is that kind of player worth 3 first rounders, especially if you don't have a proven solution at QB?
The Rams, in some sense, were like the Bears this year. Both had first round QBs, but neither could be properly evaluated because of injuries or supporting casts. So the Rams, like the Bears, decided to punt on the QB and go the other route. Was that the right decision?
IMO, and I am saying this without the benefit of hindsight, I think both the Rams and Bears made a mistake.
#33 by guest from Europe // May 31, 2023 - 2:45pm
The RGIII trade wasn't a loss for the Rams. They got a slew of draft picks.
This is true if you only look at the trade, the picks exchanged. Like with any transaction, a trade up is a "loss", and a trade down is a "win" because it nets more draft picks, more opportunities to draft and develop good players. In that sense the Rams had a big "win" in RGIII-trade and a big "loss" in Goff-trade.
What i wrote, that RGIII-trade was a loss-loss, was looking at results only.
#18 by BroncosGuyAgain // May 29, 2023 - 7:25pm
It just shows how difficult it is for people to understand each other's tone here.
Upon this, we agree completely. My tone might have been misunderstood. Also, it might have been open to misunderstanding due to my poor choice of words.
I appreciate that your response is conciliatory, and while appreciative, I apologize that you felt the need to defend yourself. I was not intending to be that confrontational. In my defense, my earlier post did include the word "perhaps", an antidote to the world of absolutism, fire-bombing internet rhetoric.
#39 by theslothook // Jun 05, 2023 - 11:40am
Les Snead just did an econ talk episode. Highly recommend
https://www.econtalk.org/les-snead-on-risk-decisions-and-football/
tldr
Aside from some stories about the sb and life as a GM; from an analytics point of view, he dropped some interesting tidbits. For example, he did not blame Goff for the SB loss and said the decision to trade for Stafford was because Stafford's maturity and veteran knowledge more closely aligned with his team's current win now position. He also said he had a tremendous amount of confidence that Donald would be this ridiculous superstar. He also said that the NFL grades players on talent, intangibles like love of the game and maturity, and then other related things like scheme fit and such. But he said if a player 1 has A level talent and B level intangibles vs player 2 has B level talent and A level intangibles; player 2 tends to be more successful. He also said coaches tend to look at players in the moment this season but GMs look at players and how they will do years from now. Finally, he justified in part the trades he's made because the picks are likely to be late in the first round since the rams are a good team.
Interesting insights, but I am a little curious about some of these claims. I think it was Goff's fault the Rams lost the SB. I thought Belichick had him completely bamboozled. That wide open throw in the end zone that he missed is on Goff. Goff isn't the unplayable QB he looked in that SB, but it was his fault imo. I also heavily doubt Les knew Donald would be this amazing. If he did, he took a massive gamble that Donald would fall to him at pick 13. For a guy whos not afraid to trade first rounders; this is a really strange and hard to believe gamble he was willing to take. As for his justification for making these trades; I have to imagine Les knows how volatile the standings are and you can just never bank on being a good team. Seattle got burned badly by that Jamal Adams trade. The Rams ended up forking over the 6th pick in the draft this year. The Broncos forked over the 5th pick in the draft. The Texans gave up the 2nd pick in the draft when they made the deal for Tunsil. You just never know!!!!
#40 by RevBackjoy // Jun 05, 2023 - 5:13pm
I also heavily doubt Les knew Donald would be this amazing. If he did, he took a massive gamble that Donald would fall to him at pick 13.
If anyone had any idea of what Donald would become, the Texans would have drafted him #1 instead of Clowney. Either that, or they'd have traded down, for 3+ 1sts.
#41 by guest from Europe // Jun 05, 2023 - 5:36pm
i agree with you on everything you wrote and disagree with GM Snead. So why do you recommend to listen to this talk?
He is doing a horrible teardown/fire-sale of Rams this offseason. Last year he paid Wagner a lot of money and released him after 1 year.
This is the only interesting statement to me:
But he said if a player 1 has A level talent and B level intangibles vs player 2 has B level talent and A level intangibles; player 2 tends to be more successful.
In my opinion the best thing Snead did for Rams was the 2012 RGIII-trade. I don't think any college player is a "sure thing" enough to be worth 3 1st round picks+ 2nd rounder. Not even Luck. There is always a risk, an injury one if nothing else. (I think the same of this year's Panthers trade to No. 1 pick)
Snead took OT Robinson with pick No 2 (from Redskins!) in 2014, not Donald. He took Donald later with their own pick. As you wrote
I also heavily doubt Les knew Donald would be this amazing. If he did, he took a massive gamble that Donald would fall to him at pick 13.
So either Snead "was confident" more that Robinson would be a star player than Donald or he is a confident liar.
#43 by BJR // Jun 06, 2023 - 4:55am
Thanks for the link. I will listen later.
Though just from your summation, it does sound quite generic, wishy-washy, hindsight biased. Of course we shouldn't expect a current NFL GM to say anything too revealing in public.
The claim about Donald is especially outlandish. Did he mention any of his less successful decisions? Why did you give Todd Gurley a huge contract? Why did you draft a 165lb WR with a second round pick? That would be more revealing IMO.
#47 by theslothook // Jun 06, 2023 - 11:14am
He talked a bit about some of the duds, but no specific names or specific details why. He did mention that the sample sizes are all small and even with 10 years of evaluation, it's hard as the competition is fierce.
He wondered how new GMs are at a disadvantage because they don't have historical data to evaluate their decisions.
All in all, he sounds like a circumspect kind of guy who is aware that life in the NFL in any capacity is a tough job with a short lifespan.
I should also correct something I wrote above. It wasn't as if he engaged in a ton of self-agrandizing and backslapping for the Donald pick. He just said that he saw things about him that made him confident that he'd be amazing. In that sense, I think he's telling the truth. Once Donald panned out, all of the things you might like about his college tape will confirm that decision. But that doesn't really explain anything other than guys who get drafted have special abilities. Whether they translate to the NFL is a completely separate matter.
#44 by guest from Europe // Jun 06, 2023 - 5:10am
Why do you think any GM would tell the truth about his way of thinking? He can say some common cliches. This particular GM Snead does a lot of trades. If he says the truth, wouldn't other teams than know how he is thinking and "fleece him" in future trades?
Look at Snead's tenure: he takes over a bad, losing team. Gets a lot of picks in RGIII-trade. Selects good CB Jenkins and other not so good players. Fisher, the coach stabilizes the team and there are 7-9 seasons. Problems with offense, GM trades Bradford for Foles, than trades a lot of picks to get Goff (several changes in GM's strategy already!), those moves don't work. He fires the coach and hires the youngest coach in history. Probably Snead's job is in jeopardy. This wunderkind coach McVay comes and a lot of winning with the same losing roster ensumes. GM procedes to trade all high picks for years in order to get players on expensive contracts. This is another huge change in his strategy and exactly what a GM shouldn't do: as he said a coach should look at players to win now and a GM should look for future years. But McVay wins and wins more. After one bad year in 2022, this GM changes his strategy again and gives up on older players, not even getting draft picks.
If this weren't the Rams, i wouldn't be writing this long post. To me this is the strongest evidence that McVay is the best coach in the league during his tenure, better than Reid. There is no mahomes or brady on this roster. That's a HOF coach winning with suboptimal roster moves: Donald, Kupp, Ramsey, limited Goff and 3rd-5th round picks. If it was another coach (good ones like Fox, Fisher, Coughlin, O'Brien...), there would be less wins and GM Snead would be fired long ago. Rams' coach saved Rams' GM. Texans' coach O'Brien couldn't do this for Texans' GM O'Brien. Patriots have a similar problem with their GM. The coach is still great.
#46 by Aaron Brooks G… // Jun 06, 2023 - 9:01am
To me this is the strongest evidence that McVay is the best coach in the league during his tenure, better than Reid. There is no mahomes or brady on this roster.
Reid was in his 18th year as a HC before he had a HOF QB.
#48 by guest from Europe // Jun 06, 2023 - 11:51am
I was thinking only last 6 years, not what Belickick or Reid or Harbaugh bros have done before that. During McVay-era
Rams DVOA Chiefs Saints Patriots Packers 49ers
2017 27.6% 10.9% 35.0% 22.2% -4.5% -9.4%
2018 23.9% 33.2% 25.2% 13.5% -4.4% -22.0%
2019 5.3% 30.1% 32.7% 30.7% 7.7% 29.0%
2020 15.4% 19.6% 33.3% -7.1% 25.8% 5.4%
2021 21.6% 17.3% 4.7% 23.3% 11.8% 19.9%
2022 -11.0% 23.0% -1.7% -0.3% 3.6% 27.5%
average 13.8% 22.3% 21.5% 13.7% 6.6% 8.4%
Only 1 of these 5 teams didn't have a HOF QB in this QB-centric era with rules tilted to protect the QBs ("don't fall on the passer etc"). You can see how much McVay means. I added 49ers under Shanahan (similar offensive coach, better roster than Rams, no HOF QB) for comparison. This Rams roster reminds me of Texans a decade ago: Donald DPOY as Watt; Kupp as A. Johnson, later Hopkins; Stafford/Goff as Schaub. Texans had Clowney, Rams had Ramsey. Those Texans were contenders only in 2012 with 9.7% DVOA. Kubiak was a very good coach, but no McVay.
Reid with A. Smith on Chiefs roster: they were 10-16% DVOA, only 1 year at 25.5% in 2015. Chiefs had many 1st round picks over the years, Rams don't want no draft picks. Until the latest draft, they had 1 player drafted in top-50 slots during McVay's tenure: TE Everett in 2017. They had Akers at slot No. 52.
The highest peak recently had the Saints and they didn't even reach a Super Bowl. That's baffling. They had the best overall roster in my opinion.
#45 by Aaron Brooks G… // Jun 06, 2023 - 8:59am
I think he's full of it too, but plenty of posters here love to bloviate about draft slot and positional value, and would probably agree about letting a future HOF DT slide to 13 because he's a DT and they aren't worth that much.
#49 by theslothook // Jun 06, 2023 - 11:55am
In my opinion the best thing Snead did for Rams was the 2012 RGIII-trade. I don't think any college player is a "sure thing" enough to be worth 3 1st round picks+ 2nd rounder. Not even Luck. There is always a risk, an injury one if nothing else. (I think the same of this year's Panthers trade to No. 1 pick)
Let me turn it around and ask if the Panthers had had the first overall pick in this most recent draft and someone had offered 3 first rounders for it, should they have made that deal? Remember, their QB room prior to the trade was Andy Dalton and Matt Corral.
In a sense, the Browns kind of did that in the Wentz deal and got almost universally ripped for it once Wentz played like an MVP in his second year. Also note, that Browns team inevitably circled the drain and landed right back into the number 1 pick in back to back years. Should they have continued this cycle of trading the pick for three firsts? I suppose in some theoretical vacuum, its the right thing to do. But from a career perspective for everyone involved but the owner of the team; I don't think you can justify that decision.
The two times I've seen a front office embark on a naked tank job(Cleveland Browns, 76ers); the coach and the gm got fired and never got to actually play out the fruits of all that losing.
#50 by guest from Europe // Jun 06, 2023 - 12:25pm
Let me turn it around and ask if the Panthers had had the first overall pick in this most recent draft and someone had offered 3 first rounders for it, should they have made that deal?
Yes, they should. Panthers were watchable last year with Darnold.
A median No. 1 drafted QB is someone like Mayfield or Winston, not Manning, nor J. Russell.
Should they have continued this cycle of trading the pick for three firsts?
No, at some point a team has enough draft picks. Browns had plenty. They could have traded down from No.1 to No.3 or something (and select a QB), not to No. 10-15. If that draft didn't have 5 QBs, they could have traded for Garoppolo.
In general, i think any team should draft the best prospect, not necessarily a QB: Suh before Bradford etc.
The two times I've seen a front office embark on a naked tank job(Cleveland Browns, 76ers); the coach and the gm got fired
Just for info: Browns also fired the GM who drafted Mayfield. 76ers fired multiple GMs and coaches since Hinkie.
I don't endorse tanking in the NFL. Building a good roster from a bad one takes years. Teams are too impatient. In NBA, tanking is the way.
Lions probably selected the best player available in their drafts: Calvin Johnson, Stafford, Suh and they went on talent alone as far as talent takes a team.
#51 by theslothook // Jun 06, 2023 - 12:47pm
In general, i think any team should draft the best prospect, not necessarily a QB: Suh before Bradford etc.
Even if the best player is literally a guard? Once you start introducing positional importance, Qb becomes the trump card.
Lions probably selected the best player available in their drafts: Calvin Johnson, Stafford, Suh and they went on talent alone as far as talent takes a team.
What screwed the Lions was the fact that they shared the division with a QB overlord in Rodgers + all of those guys were drafted before the rookie wage scale; meaning they enjoyed none of the flexibility that all of these other teams have prior. And again, along the way, drafting CJ and Myles Garrett didn't help their teams avoid going 0-16.
This gets back to my original comment. QBs are simultaneously overrated and underrated. And the underrated part comes down to the effects they have on winning over the long term. Since sustained winning inevitably lands on the QB as a necessary, but not sufficient condition; you are in a forever cycle to chase one until you have him. That's why I don't favor trading away first round picks when you have a true QB prospect there nor do I think its wise to pass up on him for a higher rated pass rusher.
#52 by guest from Europe // Jun 06, 2023 - 1:37pm
Even if the best player is literally a guard?
Was this ever the case? In any draft class with hindsight bias included?
If the best prospect by far is the safety or linebacker, take them. If it's close, there is a tier of players of similar talent, than use positional value to distinguish between them and draft offense.
What screwed the Lions was the fact that they shared the division with a QB overlord in Rodgers + all of those guys were drafted before the rookie wage scale; meaning they enjoyed none of the flexibility that all of these other teams have prior. And again, along the way, drafting CJ and Myles Garrett didn't help their teams avoid going 0-16.
This gets back to my original comment. QBs are simultaneously overrated and underrated. And the underrated part comes down to the effects they have on winning over the long term.
I agree. Those Lions' players were worthy of their salaries. Rodgers was injured in some years...
Since sustained winning inevitably lands on the QB as a necessary, but not sufficient condition; you are in a forever cycle to chase one until you have him. That's why I don't favor trading away first round picks when you have a true QB prospect there nor do I think its wise to pass up on him for a higher rated pass rusher.
Disagree. A team can and should draft a highly regarded QB such as Lawrence. If no such prospect is available, a team can get veteran QB for draft picks. Trade down, get additional picks, trade them for a more expensive (salary) veteran QB. Panthers "paid" a lot more draft picks than the Jets for Rodgers. Chiefs got A. Smith, 49ers Garoppolo, Saints Carr...
If a team doesn't have a top pick nor a very good veteran, don't force yourself to draft D. Jones, but get some veteran past his prime such as Dalton, build other parts of roster and wait for another opportunity at QB next year(s). Be patient (like Steelers for decades).
This cycle of chasing a QB in order to have sustained winning: wouldn't then all the teams which don't have your Tier 1 QB be in this cycle? 28-30 teams each year? Steelers and Cowboys have this winning for decades now. Ravens since Harbaugh, before him less, Seahawks with Carroll, Eagles for 2 decades, Rams with McVay, Chiefs with Reid,...did any of these teams have a top-2 pick of a QB? There were Goff and Wentz sinkholes...
There just aren't that many QBs at any point in time that enable this. What should other 20-30 teams do? Draft a QB every 2 years until they get at least a Burrow-level one? (Burrow's stats aren't that great)
It's a zero sum game. Some teams have to lose. Then they talk about draft and potential in order to sell tickets and talk themselves into quick fixes: just draft a prodigy.
If the rules change more, it will become like that: nobody will be allowed to touch the QB, they will stand and pass until age 50 and only the best ones will win games.
#53 by theslothook // Jun 06, 2023 - 2:18pm
If a team doesn't have a top pick nor a very good veteran, don't force yourself to draft D. Jones
That's why I added the proviso that the prospect is worthy of being a top pick. It shouldn't be a reach. Kenny Pickett did not go high in the first round for a reason despite so many qb hungry teams.
You've listed some other teams that have had sustained winning; but I don't think those serve as counter examples either. The Eagles had a terrific QB in McNabb during the 2000s and have been up and down throughout the 2010s. The Steelers and Cowboys had terrific QB play for over 10 years. I didn't say you needed a Peyton Manning QB or nothing. You can get pretty far with Qbs of the quality of Romo, Big Ben, McNabb, or Russ Wilson. Those guys are still difference makers. The only team you can name that managed to achieve long term winning despite never getting tier 2 level QB play or close to it was the Ravens. The Chiefs, 49ers, and Rams have done it for half a decade but that eventually runs its course. Talent gets expensive and primes are only so long. The QB bridges that gap.
None of what you wrote above counters my basic premise: QBs are a necessary BUT NOT a sufficient condition for long term winning. That doesn't imply a good team should tear everything down and dive head first into a tankathon. But, it does imply that a team with the ability to draft that highly regarded QB should probably do it because the future upside is far higher in that position than any other position. Citing Lawrence or other examples where it didn't work doesn't invalidate the process. All picks of every stripe are unlikely to work. The first overall pick just offers the best odds at it; low as they are. The number 1 overall pick has produced more hall of famers than any other pick slot. John Elway and Peyton Manning are exactly the upside every team chases.
#54 by guest from Europe // Jun 06, 2023 - 3:33pm
you've listed some other teams that have had sustained winning; but I don't think those serve as counter examples either. The Eagles had a terrific QB in McNabb during the 2000s and have been up and down throughout the 2010s. The Steelers and Cowboys had terrific QB play for over 10 years.
Those teams didn't have a top- pick QB in the draft! That's why i listed them. I thought this is a conversation about top picks, No. 1, maybe No. 2. I don't think any of those teams traded up in the draft and gave multiple draft picks for a coveted No. 1 QB like the Panthers just did or Browns gave away a chance to draft Wentz.
Those QBs were (by team order) R. Wilson and G. Smith, McNabb, old Vick, Foles, Wentz, Hurts, A. Smith, Mahomes, Flacco, Jackson, Roethlisberger, K. Stewart, , O'Donell, M. Rudolph, Goff, older Stafford, Aikman, Romo, Prescott, Garoppolo, Purdy and of course Brady, Cassell, M. Jones. I don't see a drafting pattern. Most are non-top 5 1st rounders. Any team could have drafted most of them.
The pattern is great coaches: Tomlin, Harbaugh, Belichick, Reid, McVay, Carroll, Parcells, Cowher and however Cowboys are doing what they are doing.
Teams ran by QBs: Manning's and Rodgers' and Elway's and Marino's team. Brees and Payton are kind of half/half credit to each one.
But, it does imply that a team with the ability to draft that highly regarded QB should probably do it because the future upside is far higher in that position than any other position. Citing Lawrence or other examples where it didn't work doesn't invalidate the process. All picks of every stripe are unlikely to work. The first overall pick just offers the best odds at it; low as they are. The number 1 overall pick has produced more hall of famers than any other pick slot. John Elway and Peyton Manning are exactly the upside every team chases.
I agree with this. There just aren't that many highly regarded QB prospects. For example, Josh Allen and Lamar Jackson weren't those.
Teams chase a manning. Luck and Lawrence were such "sure" prospects. Mayfield, Goff, Burrow, Winston, Newton, Stafford, Russell, Murray, Bradford... weren't.
#55 by theslothook // Jun 06, 2023 - 7:15pm
The pattern is great coaches: Tomlin, Harbaugh, Belichick, Reid, McVay, Carroll, Parcells, Cowher and however Cowboys are doing what they are doing.
Ill be curious to see Tomlin and Carrol's reputation will look like in a few years, especially if neither Geno nor Pickett proves to be the long term answer.
For example, Josh Allen and Lamar Jackson weren't those.
Allen was mocked at times to go first overall. I agree Lamar was not. The point I was making is if there is a top prospect available and you have 0 credible answers incumbent at QB, you take that player. Broaden it to that definition.and suddenly there's larger sample of QBs that have panned out and helped a franchise. Big Ben was also in the same grading area as Rivers and Eli for example. And Rodgers was expected to be picked first by the 49ers.
Yes, Wilson and Romo and Brady have shown you don't need to spend a high first rounder on a QB. But those are even longer odds and I've maintained maybe 1 percent of the time you get Tom Brady and 99 percent of the time you get something closer to Sam Ehliger.
#56 by guest from Europe // Jun 07, 2023 - 4:08am
The point I was making is if there is a top prospect available and you have 0 credible answers incumbent at QB, you take that player.
Yes, of course, everyone agrees with you on this.
In reality, what i was writing about, usually there is 1 such prospect QB, sometimes 0, sometimes 2, and 4-8 teams really need a QB and 28 teams need a better one to reach your sustainable winning for a decade. There will never be such supply of top QBs. So teams should build their roster with different players available, they can't all trade up and reach for some prospect when there is only 1-2 available in any given year.
Patriots needed a QB. They waited in the draft and got an average M. Jones. To me that's better than trading 5 1st round picks to reach for Lawrence or 3 1st round picks for Lance. If no such prospect was available at draft slots #10-20, a team signs Dalton or Darnold or Bridgewater and waits for a year or two. In some years an old Rodgers or Favre or Brady is available. Or Carr or Tannehill or Garoppolo... for almost nothing in draft picks.
If Rodgers or Roethlisberger is available at draft slot #15, sure, take them. That was long time ago.
These were reviews of 2018 draft by F.O. staff:
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/audibles/2018/audibles-line-2018-nfl-draft-day-one
You can read how they thought that Bills "out-stupid everyone" with Allen pick and Cardinals are OK with Rosen. You can check comment #1 from some Bills fan about all 4 QBs, it turned out to be true, although everyone was laughing at it in the comments section.
I can think of 4 "sure thing" prospect of QBs in 40 years: Elway, Manning, Luck, Lawrence. Maybe Eli? Everyone else is a developmental project with talent. Some have more talent, some less. But development is very important. Such a player must be developed by the team: QB-coaching and roster construction plays a huge role in the development process. Here is why Marino was drafted low and what were the questions about him:
Ill be curious to see Tomlin and Carrol's reputation will look like in a few years, especially if neither Geno nor Pickett proves to be the long term answer.
I don't think Smith or Pickett are anything special, they are around 0% DVOA and that is good enough for 7-10 wins depending on the roster. Carroll is very old, 72. There is no "few years" left for him. If Tomlin can get to positive record with Mason Rudolph and others, he can with almost any QB. He has game management and details problems, but his players always play for him, there is no losing season, they don't complain about injuries, no QBs available, they don't tank or quit... if the rules were reverted towards the defense, Steelers with this roster are probably where they were with young game manager Roethlisberger or with Stewart. They were winning more with game manager Ben R. in 00s than because of leader Ben R. in 10s when he was a top QB.
To me Tomlin is almost as good a motivator as Carroll and almost as good a defensive coach as Belichick. That combination in one person is a HOF coach.
#58 by theslothook // Jun 07, 2023 - 12:45pm
I can think of 4 "sure thing" prospect of QBs in 40 years: Elway, Manning, Luck, Lawrence. Maybe Eli? Everyone else is a developmental project with talent. Some have more talent, some less.
Yes those are the names that were seen as can't miss. If Lawrence stays mostly the same, I think he will be seen as a disappointment. But I would broaden the group of Qbs to names like Carson Palmer, Matt Stafford, Sam Bradford, Zach Wilson - the names of players who fit the profile of a top flight QB but had some flaws to iron out. I got the sense someone like Murray or Bryce Young were considered in that same tier. Obviously, that group has bit hit or miss, but one can't credibly wait for a can't miss to land to them at the top of the draft. You have to plan in the best case scenarios for some of these other guys.
You bring up the Patriots and Mac Jones. I think that example is actually exactly what I mean. If Belichick didn't have the cache he has, I bet he's one season away from getting fired because Mac Jones appears to top out as a solid QB and the team isn't talented enough to get far with him at QB.
You say, "Wait for an Andy Dalton or Teddy B", but the coaches who did that got fired. Matt Rhule got fired doing exactly what you suggested - trying to build a full roster and trying to find a reclamation home run. It didn't work. Vic Fangio also got fired going that route with Flacco, Keenum, and Bridgewater. Going that route feels like you are just spinning the wheels of mediocrity until you inevitably fall apart.
Let's revisit the Panthers. Prior to the trade, exactly what options were available to them? None of the top QBs were going to fall to them at the spot they were in. Unless you intentionally plan to tank; theres no guarantee you are going to land a top pick and the top QB in next year's draft. Nor can you even know for sure that the next crop of QBs are going to be anywhere near as good as this group. Simply put; the low and slow approach could leave you in the exact same situation two seasons from now.
As we all know, the strategy they took is rife with downside risks.
#59 by guest from Europe // Jun 07, 2023 - 1:51pm
You say, "Wait for an Andy Dalton or Teddy B", but the coaches who did that got fired. Matt Rhule got fired doing exactly what you suggested - trying to build a full roster and trying to find a reclamation home run.
You missunderstood. If a team has a pick No. 9(Panthers this year) or 15 (Patriots in 2021) and the worthy QB prospects are gone, than draft another position and sign a bridgewater-type as a "bridge QB" for a year or max two, not make him a reclamation home run. Draft someone next year or trade for Rodgers, Jackson, Garoppolo, Carr, when those are available...
If a team has #1 pick and there is a palmer, stafford coming in the draft, ok, take them if you need a QB. At #3 or #7 or #15 it will probably be just a jones.
The point is, don't trade up, unless it's for Lawrence. Obviously only 1 team could trade for such a player. Jaguars don't give that pick for 4 1st rounders, maybe for 5-6 picks. For others, Murray, Lance, Z. Wilson,Bradford, Stafford... don't trade up. It's a low supply and high demand of these good prospects, 1-2 per year.. a super prospect is once in a decade.
All of the coaches and GMs who drafted these murrays, bradfords,... got fired (the same as M. Rhule). Only Les Snead got saved by McVay.
GMs should build for a decade-long period. There is no instant winning after the draft. Only Luck and Prescott achieved this. It's fools gold. Rookie R. Wilson and Roethlisberger and Brady were game managers on winning rosters.
Let's revisit the Panthers. Prior to the trade, exactly what options were available to them?
Keep Darnold for a year and try to draft next year or better: trade for Rodgers, Jackson, Garoppolo, Carr,...
theres no guarantee you are going to land a top pick and the top QB in next year's draft.
They didn't in this draft either.
You should answer to yourself and here if you want, what should the Jets and Cardinals have done? Jets trade up in this darft? Cardinals draft a QB at #3 or trade up to #1 and get rid of Murray? Both have tried drafting multiple times at very high draft slots and there is no winning for them. Rams had Bradford for 2 years and you wanted them to draft RGIII if i understand you. Bears should have drafted #1 QB and trade away Fields? My opinion: Jets and Cardinals show us emphirically for decades that this usually doesn't work. If they keep going on that route at some point they will draft their stafford and achieve what Lions achieved if they have their Megatron. To draft their own elway, it will take decades.
Simply put; the low and slow approach could leave you in the exact same situation two seasons from now.
True. The same is true for drafting Z. Wilson, Darnold, Mayfield, Bradford, Murray, Rosen, Winston, Marriota, Lance...
If Belichick didn't have the cache he has, I bet he's one season away from getting fired because Mac Jones appears to top out as a solid QB and the team isn't talented enough to get far with him at QB.
I think they are ok at 7-10 wins like Steelers with Pickett. Check Patriots in 2021 with M. Jones. They will win like that if they win. Noone should be fired for that.
Majority of teams have this "just a solid QB". They have to be better at other positions and coaching in order to win. Supply of QBs is just too low. Supply of QB prospects that will work in the draft is even lower: 0-2/year and than wait 2-3 years for development.
#60 by theslothook // Jun 07, 2023 - 3:31pm
There are two separate issues worth discussing. 1) What should a team do if they have the top pick in the draft but they don't really know whether or not their incumbent starter is really good enough. 2) What should teams trapped between picks 8-15 do when they have no answers at QB.
For choice 1, I have made my position clear. I would do what the Cardinals did with Murray and Rosen. Its not fool proof. It comes with a ton of tradeoffs. Get it. Too bad, such is life. But I can understand and appreciate the other side.
For choice 2; I think it really depends on what the asking price is. In this alternate universe where the Panthers keep the pick and go after some alternative in free agency to me has a predictable end game. Either you tread water and you end up right back in the same position the following year or it blows up spectacularly and the coach/gm get fired; which is what happened to the Colts. Through that lens, if I can get the first overall pick - it provides a clear path forward. If he busts; oh well, we are back to the drawing board. If he succeeds, we have clarity to build around him.
But again it comes down to the asking price. 3 first rounders is probably too rich for me. The Panthers didnt give up three first rounders, but they gave up a lot. 2 first rounders + a 2nd + DJ Moore who could be tremendously valuable considering he's put up good numbers in a disaster qb situation for four years. That's a lot and I am undecided about whether I would have made the decision if I were in the Panthers shoes. Probably would for the reasons I listed above.
Btw, you said sign/trade for Rodgers, Jimmy G, and Carr. Well Rodgers has to want to play for you, so thats not going to make sense if you are the Panthers. Jimmy G has well documented injury issues and so planning your season around him as your starter is just not viable. And Carr is overpaid for what he is so I am not sure that's a great end game either. So to me, none of the alternatives you have listed are saving you from the same dilemma that the Colts have lived through since the day Luck retired
#61 by guest from Europe // Jun 07, 2023 - 5:05pm
For issue 1) i am for trade away that pick unless Lawrence or Luck is to be drafted. This was the topic on Bears and Fields prior to this draft and i am in agreement with everyone else commenting here, but understand your thinking.
issue 2)
alternate universe where the Panthers keep the pick and go after some alternative in free agency to me has a predictable end game. Either you tread water and you end up right back in the same position the following year
Not if they trade for Rodgers or Jackson or get old Brady or old Manning in free agency. If no such player is available, than it's treading water at QB, draft at #9 some other position. Maybe they find another Watt or WR Jefferson. That is more probable than another Luck.
Well Rodgers has to want to play for you, so thats not going to make sense if you are the Panthers.
He was under contract with Packers. If he doesn't want to play, he can retire or sulk. Panthers had some defensive talent, NFC South is wide open, Rodgers on that team and they are the favourites in that division. NFC doesn't have many great teams: 49ers, maybe Eagles. This looks better to me than the Jets. Jackson would be a better long-term fit than Rodgers.
Through that lens, if I can get the first overall pick - it provides a clear path forward. If he busts; oh well, we are back to the drawing board. If he succeeds, we have clarity to build around him.
If he busts, GM is also fired. Probably coach as well. This success of #1 winning and turning around a losing team was Newton and Luck. Maybe Lawrence will be like that. Burrow almost had a career-ending injury in a first few games. Before that Manning. Stafford is Tier 3 for you.
If you want a young prospect for a QB, trade for Lance. He has 100 pass attempts, he is still an unknown, a 2 year older prospect. It would be a cheap trade, maybe a 2nd round pick. "If he busts; oh well, we are back to the drawing board. If he succeeds, we have clarity to build around him." How can anyone compare Lance to these new prospects? Both are unknowns.
But again it comes down to the asking price. 3 first rounders is probably too rich for me.
If you think Panthers took the best strategy, than teams such as Falcons,Jets, Commanders should have done the same. There would be auction bidding for #1 pick or at least for #3 to draft Richardson. So, at least 4 teams are bidding for #1 pick. The second highest offer gets #3. They will have to offer 5 or 7 or 9 picks. Like that each draft when a trade would be possible, such as 2016 or 2023. Why stop at 3 1st rounders when the alternative is "treading water and getting fired"?!
So to me, none of the alternatives you have listed are saving you from the same dilemma that the Colts have lived through since the day Luck retired
I think Colts had a good coach in Reich. Don't understand why he was fired. They did good with Rivers. Why that GM traded for Wentz, when Rams had to pay, give a draft pick to Lions to unload Goff contract, i didn't understand. That's what i thought at that moment. Stafford was traded for 1st rounder and 2nd rounder (similar to Rodgers) and a 1st rounder to unload Goff. Colts GM paid for Wentz contract and wasn't fired!
If you think this way of Colts, than they should have traded up from #4 to #1. So, outbid the Panthers and other teams or be stuck in this cycle since Luck. They got the 3rd QB drafted, bust probability is high, they are stuck in this cycle, so they should have offered 5 1st round picks or more.
Richardson's ceiling is probably to be Jackson-like and you think Jackson is between your Tier 2 and Tier 3. On Colts roster that isn't good enough for sustained winning!
Jets and Bills and Dolphins were in this dilemma for decades. You want a top-6 QB. Carr-level isn't good enough. How are 32 teams going to have top-6 QBs? Or Ravens don't need one for winning, so it's 31 teams.
#63 by guest from Europe // Jun 08, 2023 - 2:38am
Maybe it was like that. Later they tried Ryan. It went bad. That can happen, no problem.
During the season they became totally dysfunctional. That must not happen. And the GM still has the job?! He has tried 4-6 different QBs in 4 seasons. These are no RBs, they have different strengths and weaknesses, offense must be tailored for them. Wentz wasn't bad on Colts, like Goff isn't bad on Lions. It's various flavours of variance around average. Goff fluctuates year-to-year, Wentz game-to-game. Lions did this much better than Colts, not their QB-choice, but at least having a strategy.
This is another example of what Snead said: GM must plan and build a roster for a decade, not listen to coaches win-now desires. If a team does what a coach wants, they can give him the GM position, like O'Brien or Belichick or Kelly on Eagles. Of course, Snead doesn't do what he says, he trades everything to win now. This should be done only if some HOFers are nearing career-end, like Rodgers on Packers, Brady on Bucs, Brees on Saints.
#65 by guest from Europe // Jun 08, 2023 - 2:49pm
if I can get the first overall pick - it provides a clear path forward. If he busts; oh well, we are back to the drawing board. If he succeeds, we have clarity to build around him.
Are these two the only possible outcomes? Isn't there another, unclear one: that #1 pick becomes a slightly above average QB, your Tier 3 players? Isn't this the most probable? Recent history: such are/were Murray, Goff, Winston, Bradford, Stafford, Eli, Vick? Busts were Couch, Carr, Mayfield, A. Smith, J. Russell. Tier 2 or above success: Luck, Newton, Burrow?, Peyton.
Palmer was injured and successful and traded, unwanted by Bengals... so he is everything above. Lawrence and Young, too early to tell.
2 out of 4 successes were generational talents that couldn't be traded for nor should anyone hope to draft such talents. One was discarded for the other by the same team.
Out of "normal", usual talents it's 2 out of 14 successes. (If i understand what you are looking for) With Palmer 3 out of 15
If Stafford/Eli- draft level is enough, why is Carr in free agency not acceptable alternative?
#66 by theslothook // Jun 08, 2023 - 3:02pm
If Stafford/Eli- draft level is enough, why is Carr in free agency not acceptable alternative?
Tier 3 also provides clarity - you build around them. I think the key difference between Carr in complete free agency and Carr the draft pick getting extended is you can usually coax that player into a more palatable contract. Remember, the player is underpaid as a rookie and is taking a chance by opting not to extend until he is literally a free agent. Often times, that qb will trade some extra cash for some security in the present.
That said, look I'm having an active debate about this. At some point, tier 3 QBs are going to cost enough money where its truly much better NOT to pay them. I don't know what that tipping point is. The other problem is, at the time the decision has to be made, you don't know if he's a tier 3 player or not.
When Murray was signed; I think Arizona and its fans hoped Murray would be better than tier 3. When Dak was signed, the team also hoped he'd be better than tier 3. The Eagles and the Ravens are assuming at this very moment that they have a tier 2 player. So did the Bills when they inked Allen after one awesome year coming off two bad years. I used to think the more prudent move is to wait until the last minute to sign the player because you have more evidence. But as you said quite correctly - even if the guy suffers an injury or backslides; he's still getting the bag. Lamar still got paid. Dak still got paid. Its probably inevitable.
#67 by guest from Europe // Jun 08, 2023 - 3:56pm
Tier 3 also provides clarity - you build around them.
I thought you didn't want this. You wrote that M. Jones is just like this or worse? and GM or coach would be close to fired if it wasn't Belichick.
I think such players could/should be drafted with picks #5 - #25. No need to trade up and draft them #1 just because they are QBs. That's why i originally wrote: take "sure thing" Suh over "maybe" Bradford.
Its probably inevitable.
It's not inevitable. I bet Belichick won't give a huge contract to M. Jones. It will be around $20M/year or less or they will let him go and draft someone else. That's what i would do. Panthers could have signed Darnold at $10M for a year and drafted Levis at #9 if their scouts think he is promising to be Tier 3. If they don't, just Darnold if Carr is expensive, Rodgers+Lazard don't want to go there etc..
Teams could be a little more adventurous with QB contracts. They don't have to be ruthless like they are towards RBs, but they don't have to pay 40M+ everyone either. Raiders did this with last Carr's contract and got out of it easily.
(I think Prescott is your Tier 2. he is no Tier 3. To me he is better than Burrow at the moment. )
#57 by guest from Europe // Jun 07, 2023 - 6:19am
The Eagles had a terrific QB in McNabb during the 2000s and have been up and down throughout the 2010s.
I don't think Eagles in 2000's were made by mostly McNabb. It's Reid's scheme.
In 10s they had a lot of dysfunction: fired Reid, hired Kelly, fired the GM, gave everything to Kelly, fired Kelly, hired the same GM, won a SB, fired the coach... total drama for years.
You can get pretty far with Qbs of the quality of Romo, Big Ben, McNabb, or Russ Wilson.
Look at what draft slots they were drafted, who developed/coached them, what quality of roster they were members of. Romo was the best of them and had the least wins.
The Chiefs, 49ers, and Rams have done it for half a decade but that eventually runs its course. Talent gets expensive and primes are only so long. The QB bridges that gap.
Yes, i agree. That is long enough for me. After half a decade or less roster talent will dissipate. That's what teams should reallistically aim for. Not for Packers or Chargers QBs for decades. Those are "pipe dreams".
The only team you can name that managed to achieve long term winning despite never getting tier 2 level QB play or close to it was the Ravens.
I am not arguing teams should have Dilfer at QB! They should treat it like any other position, try to get the best player available in draft or free agency or trade.
Winning for decade+ in Super Bowl era is rare: 80s Redskins, Patriots, Manning's teams, Steelers with many non-top QBs, Ravens, Reid's teams, 49ers with B. Walsh and HOFers, Cowboys with many QBs, Broncos with Elway, maybe Marino's Dolphins, Packers with 2 HOFers, 70s/80s Rams, old Vikings. That's not a list, those are outliers with 6 teams with top QB HOFers (2 of them multiple HOFers!), 3 teams also had HOF coaching in Shula and Belichick and Walsh, and 6 teams with various QBs over decades: 2 winning with defense+run game (Steelers, Ravens), 2 HOF coaches (Gibbs, Reid), 2 with defense (Vikings, Rams). Patriots won 11 games with Cassell and M. Jones, not just Brady!
There are many, many Tier-2 QBs who don't achieve this (R. Wilson and Seahawks won for 5-6 years). HOFers Favre and Rodgers and Brees don't really qualify for this long winning. They had a winning ceiling and .500 valley. Favre and Rodgers together on Packers do.
A list with Tier 1 and Tier 2 QBs who didn't win for decade+ would be much longer than a list of those who did win like that! Yes, you write it's a necessary but not sufficient condition to have such a QB. Such a goal of decade+ for a team is totally unreallistic.
If you want decade+ winning, I could write that a team should win like 40s Bears or 60s Packers or 70s Steelers and everything else isn't good enough. In that regard Manning and Brady were failures.
All picks of every stripe are unlikely to work. The first overall pick just offers the best odds at it; low as they are. The number 1 overall pick has produced more hall of famers than any other pick slot.
I agree.
I guess this comes back to Bears and Cardinals: Cardinals took Murray with No. 1 in 2019 and Bears traded it away in 2023. Both had a young QB. You really, really want a murray and no trade. If it's a murray, mayfield, goff, burrow, young, i'm for the trade down. Only if a luck or a lawrence is available, once in a decade QB, than take him and get rid of whoever you have: old Manning, Rosen, Fields.
If Cardinals didn't select a #1 QB in 2019, they get another one next year(s): maybe Herbert or Lance or Fields if they don't get draft pick #1. They had in this draft another pick, #3, but didn't select a QB.
Or for Rams: you didn't want RGIII-trade down, but want Goff-trade up. I am of the opposite opinion. If we were GMs, i would happily do these trades with you and with Les Snead.